Paradigm, Evolution and Tradition Of Realism. A Reader for International Relations Students

Introduction:

This following work is aiming to show, analytical development of the relalist thought in international relations field in a chronological order. In addition to this effort, it is also trying to discuss the main problems of realist thought with the words of the leading thinkers of the theory.

This work is not only gathering the influential ideas of the thinkers, but also try to make an oversensitive selective reading between the texts which are consisting important articals about realist thought.

At the beginning I do want to thank to my Professor Mr. Bellers for his library Card and his son Bellers,Jr. (I ate one of his cheesy pizzas in my late time study)

Key Words:

Realism, Theory, Power, Power Lust, Security, National Interest, Reciprocity

Realism in General Sense

The nature and plausibility of realism is one of the most hotly debated issues in contemporary metaphysics, perhaps even the most hotly debated issue in contemporary philosophy. The question of the nature and plausibility of realism arises with respect to a large number of subject matters, including ethics, aesthetics, causation, modality, science, mathematics, semantics, and the everyday world of macroscopic material objects and their properties. Although it would be possible to accept (or reject) realism across the board, it is more common for philosophers to be selectively realist or non-realist about various topics: Thus it would be perfectly possible to be a realist about the everyday world of macroscopic objects and their properties, but a non-realist about aesthetic and moral value. In addition, it is misleading to think that there is a straightforward and clear-cut choice between being a realist and a non-realist about a particular subject matter. It is rather the case that one can be more- or-less realist about a particular subject matter. Also, there are many different forms that realism and non-realism can take.

There are two general aspects to realism, illustrated by looking at realism about the everyday world of macroscopic objects and their properties. First, there is a claim about existence. Tables, rocks, the moon, and so on, all exist, as do the following facts: The table's being square, the rocks being made of granite, and the moons being spherical and yellow. The second aspect of realism about the everyday world of macroscopic objects and their properties concerns independence. The fact that the moon exists and is spherical is independent of anything anyone happens to say or think about the matter. Likewise, although there is a clear sense in which the table's being square is dependent on us (it was designed and constructed by human beings after all), this is not the type of dependence that the realist wishes to deny. The realist wishes to claim that apart from the mundane sort of empirical dependence of objects and their properties familiar to us from everyday life, there is no further sense in which everyday objects and their properties can be said to be dependent on anyone's linguistic practices, conceptual schemes, or whatever¹.

By the understanding of these details, it is obvious that Realism (as a total idea in lots of cases) has influent in the various disciplines (literature, art etc.). Independence lust and power lust also make Realism one of the most influential ideas of the international relations theory. These papers are basically trying to clarify / show the general attitude of Realist thinking on international relations field.

Realism is not a theory defined by an explicit set of assumptions and propositions. Rather, as many commentators have noted, it is a general orientation: “a philosophical disposition”; “a set of normative emphasis which shape theory”; “an attitude of mind” with “a quite distinctive and recognizable flavour”; “a loose framework”; and “a big tent, with room for a number of theories”. Realism is an approach to international relations that has emerged gradually through the work of a series of analysts who have situated themselves within, and thus delimited, a distinctive but diverse style or tradition of analysis².

Paradigm and The Evolution of the Realist Paradigm

I.

The literature in international relations has used Kuhn’s concept of paradigm in mainly two contexts. They are by no means exclusive. But their respective focus is slightly different and for the purpose of easier presentation, this difference will be emphasized. According to Kuhn; theory construction in normal science involves clarifying the concepts presented in the dominant paradigm and employing them in light of research to elaborate theories. It is clear to most people that international relations inquiry has been in a qualitative stage. Consequently, it should come as no surprise that a great deal of emphasis has been placed on developing alternative conceptual frameworks. Such an emphasis in the field, however, does not mean in itself that the realist paradigm has not directed theory construction. That would only be the case if the various conceptual frameworks did not employ the foundemantal assumptions of the paradigm. Common approaches is the perception that international relations has had a main paradigm, namely realism³. Various aspects of the realist paradigm have been articulated fairly systematically and somewhat cumulatively⁴.

Kuhn’s analysis implies that a proper understanding of the historical development of any science involves identifying the rise of a paradigm and how it is displaced. Historical interpretation of how the scientific study of International Relations is conducted will be offered by drawing on a number of Kuhn’s insights⁵. Realism functioned as a paradigm in setting the boundaries of legitimate research. As Vasquez has convincingly argued, it provided the basic tool of analysis for generations puzzle- solvers. Or, to use his own words, it tells the scholar what is known about the world, what is unknown about it, how we should view the world if we want to know the unknown and finally what is worth knowing’⁶.

On the other hand, by one of its assumptions, realism gave the discipline a much longed for and very suitable demarcation from other sciences. Beside the assumption of the state being the most important actor, and power the most important goal of politics, realism claims that there is a qualitative difference between the laws which govern domestic societies and those governing the nature of the international system. Perhaps most outspoken is Aron who argued that as long as there was no universal state, there would be an essential difference between domestic and international politics. In their relations, states were, according to Aron, still in a “state of nature”, as opposed to a “state of law”. If they were not, there would be no way to demarcate a particular theory of international relations⁷.

II.

Since the idealists tested their “theories” not in the laboratory but in the real world, by atttempting to guide policy, the anomaly that led to a scientific crisis and eventual displacement of the paradigm was the inavitably of international law and organization to prevent World War II. It was the background of the war that made E. H. Carr’s “The Twenty years’ Crisis (1939)” a devastating and seminal critic of idealism. He began by calling for a

true science of international politics and maintained that in order to have a science, inquiry must take account of how things actually are and not solely of how things should be. He stated that it was the idealists’ inability to distinguish aspirations from reality that made idealism an inappropriate perspective for either the study or conduct of international politics. Carr maintained that the purpose of realism is to understand and adapt to the forces that guide behavior and warned that such a perspective might lead to a conservative acceptance of the status quo, but that in this stage it was a “necessary corrective to the exuberance of utopianism”. He then went on to shatter systematically the illusions of utopians, or idealists, by employing a type of Marxist analysis that became more evident in his later work and by pointing out the need to consider importance of power in international relations. Carr’s work, however, was essentially a critique and offered only the vaguests outline of an alternative picture of the world.

Others besides Carr were reacting to the same events, and it was these other writers along with Carr who began to develop the realist paradigm. These leading writers and their most influental works were:

- Schumann, International Politics (1933)
- Nicolson, Diplomacy (1939)
- Carr, Twenty Years ’ Crisis (1939)
- Niebuhr, Christianity and Power Politics (1940)
- Schwarzenberger, Power Politics (1941)
- Spykman, America ’ s Strategy in World Politics (1942)
- Wight, Power Politics (1946)
- Morgenthau, Politics Among Nations (1948)
- Kennan, American Diplomacy (1951)
- Butterfield, Christianity, Diplomacy and War (1953)

These writers represent the attempt of an entire generation to understand and express their most fundamental beliefs about international politics. Together they were successful in displacing the idealist paradigm by accounting for anomally of World War II in terms of power politics⁸.

This survey of the history of the field since 1919⁹ has shown that each of the two stages - the idealist stage, the realist stage- has had an impact on developing a science of international relations. The idealist phase help institutionalize the field and established the emphasis of the dicipline on questions of peace and war. The realist challenge to idealism was to state that “wishing for peace does not make it occur.” The realists pointed out that the development of utopian strategies to end war could not hope to succeed, because they ignored basic laws of human nature and behavior. The implication of the realist critique was that in order to eliminate war it is first necessary to discover the laws that govern human behavior and the idealists were not aware of these laws or had a misconception of what they were. The realists attempted to move the field from purely normative analysis to more empirical analysis. They did this by displacing idealism and providing a paradigm that clearly clearly specified a picture of international politics and a set of topics of inquiry that if properly researched would delineate the laws of international behavior. The most comprehensive list of those laws appeared in Morgenthau’s theory of power politics¹⁰. Because it is very important to understanding realist behaviour of the states, in following parts Morgenthau’s theory and rules will be analysed.

Genealogy of International Relations Thought¹¹

Abbildung in dieser Leseprobe nicht enthalten

Realist Tradition

Basic realist ideas and assumptions are:

1. a pessimistic view of human nature.
2. a conviction that international relations are necessarily conflictual and the international conflicts are ultimately resolved by war.
3. a high regard for the values of national security and state survival
4. a basic skepticism that there can be progress in international politics that is comparable to that in domestic political life.

These ideas and assumptions steer the thought of most leading realist IR theorists, both past and present¹².

In realist thought humans are characterizedas being preoccupied with their own wellbeing in their competitive relations with each other. They desire to be in driver’s seat. They do not wish to be taken advantage of. They consequently strive to have the ‘edge’ in relations with other people - including international relations with other countries. In that regard at least, human beings are considered to be basicly the same eveywhere. Thus the desire to enjoy an advantage over others and to avoid domination by others is universal.

Thucydides, Machiavelli, Hobbes and indeed all classical realists share that view to a greater or lesser extent. They believe that the goal of power, the means of power, and the issues of power are central preoccupation of political activity. International politics is thus portrayed as ‘power politics’: an area of rivalry, conflict, and war between states in which the same basic problems of defending the national interest and ensuring the continued survival of the state repeat themselves over and over again¹³.

Although there are lots of classifications about realism theories in the field, this article aims to explain all theories in three main parts : Roots, Formers and Reformers.

A. Roots (Classical Realism)

- Thucydides:

Realism can be found in ancient as well as modern sources. Probably the most famous text in the realist tradition is the Melian Dialogue in Thucydides’ History of the Peloponnesian wars between Athens and Sparta at the and of the 5th century BC. The arguments advanced by the Athenian envoys at Melos are so rigorously realist that they provide one of the few examples of a sustained, consistently radical realism¹⁴.

Aristotle said that ‘man is a political animal’. Thucydides said in effect that political political animals are highly unequal in their powers and capabilities to dominate others and to defend themselves. All states, large and small, must adapt to that natural, given reality of unequal power and conduct themselves accordingly. If states do that, they will survive and perhaps even prosper. If states fail to do that, they place themselves in jeopardy and may even be destroyed. Ancient history is full of many examples of states and empires, small and large, that were destroyed.

So Thucydides emphasized the limited choices and the restricted sphere of maneuver available to states people in the conduct of foreign policy. He also emphasizes that decisions have consequences: before any final decision is made a decisionmaker should have carefully thought through the likely consequences, bad as well as good. If a country and its government wish to survive and prosper, they had better pay attention to these fundemental political maxims of international relations¹⁵.

- Machiavelli:

Among realists of an earlier century, perhaps none stands out more prominently than Niccoló Machiavelli, the great 16th century Florentine diplomat, historian, theorist, and play wright. Even today, one of the first words likely to come to mind when one mentions realism or political amoralism is “Machiavellianism”.

Machiavelli regularly expresses a low opinion of human nature, which in one poem he characterizes as “insatiable, arrogant, crafty, and shifting, and above all else malignant, iniquitous, violent, and savage”¹⁶. The overriding Machiavellian assumption is that the world is dangerous place. But it is also, by the same token, an opportune place too. If anybody hopes to survive in such a world, he or she must always be aware of dangers, must anticipate them, and must take the necessary precautions against them. And if they hope to prosper, to enrich themselves, and to bask in the reflected glory of their accumulated power and wealth, it is necessary for them to recognize and to exploit the opportunities that prevent themselves and to do that more quickly, more skillfully and more ruthlessly than any of their rivals or enemies. The conduct of foreign policy is thus an instrumental or Machiavellian activity based on the intelligent calculation of one’s power and interests as against the power and interest of rivals and competitors.

Machiavelli’s realist writings are sometimes portrayed as ‘manuals on how to thrive in a completely chaotic and immoral world ’. but that view is misleading. It overlooks the responsibilities of rulers not merely to themselves or to their personal regimes but also to their country and its citizens: what Machiavelli, thinking of Florance, refers to as ‘the republic’. This is the civicvirtue aspect of Machiavellian realism: rulers have to be both lions and foxes because their people depend upon them for their survival and prosperity. That dependence of the people upon their ruler, and specifically upon the wisdom of his or her foreign policy, is owing to to the fact that their fate is entangled in the same state: that is the normative heart not only of Machiavellian realism but of classical realism generally¹⁷.

- Hobbes:

I.

Thomas Hobbes’s mature politically views were deeply influenced by the violent disruptions of the English Civil War of the 1640s.

[...]

¹ Realism, Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/realism/, 02.May.2005

² Jack Donnelly, Realism and International Relations, Cambridge University Press, 2000, p. 6

³ Stefano Guzzini, Realism in International Relations and International Political Economy, Routledge Published, 1998, p. 5

⁴ John A. Vasquez, The Power of Power Politics, Cambridge University Press , 1998, pp. 60-61

⁵ Vasquez, The Power of Power Politics, p.32

⁶ Guzzini, Realism in International Relations and International Political Economy, p. 6

⁷ Guzzini, Realism in International Relations and International Political Economy, p. 7

⁸ Vasquez, The Power of Power Politics, pp. 35-36

⁹ The World’s first Chair in International Politics at the University College of Wales, Aberystwyth in 1919

¹⁰ Vasquez, The Power of Power Politics, p. 43

¹¹ Heikki Patomäki, After International Relations, Routledge Press, 2002, s.37

¹² Robert Jackson, George Sørensen, Introduction to International Relations, Oxford University Press, 1999, p. 68

¹³ Jackson, Sørensen, Introduction to International Relations, p.68

¹⁴ Donnelly, Realism and International Relations, p. 23

¹⁵ Jackson, Sørensen, Introduction to International Relations, p. 73

¹⁶ Donnelly, Realism and International Relations, p. 25

¹⁷ Jackson, Sørensen, Introduction to International Relations, p.75